Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This picture has a nice contrast between varves and flood deposits. In the middle of this picture are fine grained sediments with alternating light and dark bands consistent with biannual seasonal fluctations. Above and below the varves are coarse grained flood deposits:
The flood deposits above and below the varves were produced by flooding from glacial Lake Missoula. These floods produced the Western Channeled Scablands. You can see more here:
Channeled Scablands: Overview
So as you can see, it is extremely easy to determine the evidence between flood and non-flood environments.
look I can post pictures too:
all basically saying the same thing, slow gradual change is not what has happened at the green river formation,
more here:
Green River Formation Very Likely Did Not Form in a Postdiluvial Lake - Answers in Genesis
Are you as good as your word? Are you really interested in peer reviewed articles? How about this one:
Fischer, A.G., Roberts, L.T., 1991, Cyclicity in the Green River Formation (lacustrine Eocene) of Wyoming, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61 (7) , pp. 1146-1154
Abstract
The lacustrine mode (Tipton and Laney members) accumulated mainly varved oil shale. Here annual cycles are recorded as varves. Variations in varve thickness demonstrate El Nino (ENSO)-type and sunspot cycles. Milankovitch-scale cycles are not obvious in lithic variations, but gamma ray logs record 1) precessional variations with a mean period (varve-timed) of 19.5ka, and 2) a bundling of these in the ca. 100ka eccentricity cycle. In the playa mode (Wilkins Peak Member), the lithic succession oil shale-trona-dolomitic marlstone records the precessional drying up of a lake and is again bundled in sets of five, by the 100 ka eccentricity rhythm.
-------------------------
or this one?
Tylmann, W., Szpakowska, K., Ohlendorf, C., Woszczyk, M., Zolitschka, B., 2012, Conditions for deposition of annually laminated sediments in small meromictic lakes: A case study of Lake Suminko (Northern Poland), Journal of Paleolimnology 47 (1) , pp. 55-70
----------------------------------
Or how about the "annual chronometer" in the laminations in this one?
Shanahan, T.M., Overpeck, J.T., Beck, J.W., Wheeler, C.W., Peck, J.A., King, J.W., Scholz, C.A., 2008, The formation of biogeochemical laminations in Lake Bosumtwi, Ghana, and their usefulness as indicators of past environmental changes, Journal of Paleolimnology 40 (1) , pp. 339-355
----------------------------------
Perhaps you would like the sub-annual structures in the varves studied in this study?
Chutko, K.J., Lamoureux, S.F.,2008, Identification of coherent links between interannual sedimentary structures and daily meteorological observations in Arctic proglacial lacustrine varves: Potentials and limitations, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 45 (1) , pp. 1-13
-----------------------------------
OOoh! Here's one with both varve counting and radiometric dating!
Migowski, C., Agnon, A., Bookman, R., Negendank, J.F.W., Stein, M., 2004, Recurrence pattern of Holocene earthquakes along the Dead Sea transform revealed by varve-counting and radiocarbon dating of lacustrine sediments, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222 (1) , pp. 301-314
of particular note is this bit from the abstract:
"...Radiocarbon dating and annual laminae counting yield excellent agreement between disturbed sedimentary structures (identified as seismites) and the historical earthquake record..."
-------------------------------
Let us all know when you are willing to talk about some science.
Then you might wish to explain (using your "single catastrophic event" model) this:
It actually looks like a flood event to me (not the formation of sediments but the fact that they have been washed away so dramatically). Even the river that was formed still remains. The vertical cliffs and flat riverbed are characteristic of powerful flooding.
thanks for the comments, I know now at least you as an "old earther" are open to the various perspectives. Good work.
Then you might wish to explain (using your "single catastrophic event" model) this:
It is a classic photo of the Green River Formation, a set of varves. The little dots in the foreground are cows for scale.
Now there are millions of varves in this deposit.
But you would probably like some peer reviewed work on the Green River rhythmites.
How about this one:
Fischer, A.G., and Roberts, L.T., 1991, Cyclicity in the Green River Formation lacustrine (Eocene) ofWyoming: Jour. Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, p. 1146-1154. (HERE)
So let's take some look at the details.
This article discusses not only the petrology of the varve couplets but also references studies on the mechanism for formation.
IF this were a single catastrophic event I'm curious why it would show repeated (repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated) couplets of increased organic content, lower organic content, over and over and over again.
There is a "lesson" from the University of Indiana website that discusses the "annual" nature of these varves (HERE)
Interestingly they note this:
Now I really like that one because I'm assuming you know how evaporites form. They require that the concentration of the salts be high enough to overcome the solubility of that salt in the water body. So we have not only a case where the water was starting to evaporate (long enough time sitting around) but it also has "cycles" in it! Then up above we have all these zillions of annual layers.
But again, the nature of these varves was described as long as about 1930 by Bradley:
Bradley, W.H., 1930,The varves and climate of the Green River Epoch: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 158, p. 87-110.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
There are countless sources that say the Earth, the Solar System, and universe are much older than that ridiculous date.
Does ice float in your world? It does in mine. What I love about ice cores is that they kill two birds with one stone. Not only do they show the Earth is unarguably much older than YEC's claim, they also show that Noah's Ark never happened. A fortuitous twofer.
An actual study of geology, which includes studying both stratigraphy and sedimentology will quickly lay any YEC claims to rest. The sediments we can observe came from several different environments. None of them were the environment of a global flood.
Even the asteroids spinning in space show that the Solar System is billions of years old. Using simple Newtonian mechanics a formula can be derived that combines rate of rotation and mass of the asteroid to show a minimum age for it if it is a tumbling asteroid. All of those ages are on the order of billions of years.
QUOTE=Lucy Stulz;62805755]I apologize. You seem to be intent on insulting others.
I thought perhaps you were interested in a discussion of the science.
[/QUOTE]But I beg of you, do not misrepresent or belittle people's efforts in providing you with information.
See I have many questions too.
But some of them don't have to do with sea shells on mountains.
all basically saying the same thing, slow gradual change is not what has happened at the green river formation,
Funny thing, mentioning Ice.
Because if you remember Ice melts relatively fast.
If I have genuinely insulted you, I apologize, and you should really report it. Rather than accuse.
yeah but what you did was flood the air waves with an much information as you can and hope that someone will be overwhelmed with the amount of information and not know where to start.
succeed.
But it's also a fail, because doing this is considered trolling.
like I said before if I genuinely offended you, I apologize. But whats happening here is I am telling you that all the time you have spent the last 5-10 years, all the money you spent....was a lie.
You may come out with a degree and a job, but at the sacrifice of what?
morals?
I mean you can't tell me that when woodmorappe tells us of all the hypocrisy in dating methods, like What do you think of another term "cooling ages"? Or rejuvinated isochrons? "so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system"
what about those orwellian terms?
you think someone wouldn't notice that scientists are saying, oh this date is too young, it has rejuvenated isochrons, or is because of a cooling age that this date is wrong, so we will toss it and try another rock?
okay so this would be what I am talking about,
it's a Non-Sequitur obviously,
meaning you don't actually have the information so you flood the thread with link spamming.
Nice try.
Again do you or do you not have simply one single edition of a peer review regarding the annuality of varves over the semiannual varves
here is John Morris - PHD
"The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year.
There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the Green River Formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously a fish carcass, even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.
Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?
a good site, a college site.
But not a peer review, you almost had one document for us to look at.
you did provide peer reviews of a whole lot of unrelated material to our discussion.
Well, thats good. But what do all those peer reviews actually have to do with annual varves?
or were you just giving us a non sequitor,
providing info not relavant
I can post dozens of peer reviews, but have I?
Only when they are needed as by the subject at hand as it would seem that I was merely trying to impress the audience with superiour knowledge, rather than actually debating and allowing others to learn.
Funny thing, mentioning Ice.
Because if you remember Ice melts relatively fast.
Why are there still comets in space?
If it's billions of years old.
Oh I forgot,
It comes from the never observed "Oort cloud"
and "kuiper belt"
but the kuiper belt average sizes for comets are no where near close to the sizes of comets in our solar system, so how can they be supplying them?
See I have many questions too.
But some of them don't have to do with sea shells on mountains.
gradyll said:yeah but what you did was flood the air waves with an much information as you can and hope that someone will be overwhelmed with the amount of information and not know where to start.
like I said before if I genuinely offended you, I apologize. But whats happening here is I am telling you that all the time you have spent the last 5-10 years, all the money you spent....was a lie.
You may come out with a degree and a job, but at the sacrifice of what?
morals?
I mean you can't tell me that when woodmorappe tells us of all the hypocrisy in dating methods, like What do you think of another term "cooling ages"? Or rejuvinated isochrons? "so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system"
what about those orwellian terms?
Gradyll, you asked for peer-reviewed articles that the varves are annual. Lucy provided multiple ones. You could have picked any single one and start there. Instead, you accuse Lucy of dishonest tactics and then spam a non-peer reviewed article. I can't help thinking that you were more than a little dishonest with your orginal request.okay so this would be what I am talking about,
it's a Non-Sequitur obviously,
meaning you don't actually have the information so you flood the thread with link spamming.
Nice try.
Again do you or do you not have simply one single edition of a peer review regarding the annuality of varves over the semiannual varves
Gradyll, you asked for peer-reviewed articles that the varves are annual. Lucy provided multiple ones. You could have picked any single one and start there. Instead, you accuse Lucy of dishonest tactics and then spam a non-peer reviewed article. I can't help thinking that you were more than a little dishonest with your orginal request.
Of course, this doesn't surprise me, given that you balked at college level text book references. College level text books contain information that is considered settled by the scientific community. It is a simplified overview of the state-of-the-art in the field, and thus derives from the peer-reviewed literature. It should be your (and I do mean your) starting point in this discussion, given the abysmal lack of basic knowledge you have shown in this field. That you balk at these textbooks again tells me a lot about the honesty with which you enter into this discussion.
you could start by reading at least the abstracts.
I mean instead of just ACCUSING me of posting trash.
at least I am not " moral" like you. Incessantly rude and poorly educated.
Is that what your biblically based learnings have wrought?
You incessantly insult and belittle AND WON'T EVEN MAN UP AND ACCEPT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO!
Little man with a big ego.
I am glad you got SOMETHING from a high school english class...but I don't think it means what you think it means when you call technical terms " orwellian". At least you spelled it right which a refreshing change for you.
Space, on the average is dang cold, in case you forgot. Even the temperature at the Earth's orbit is below 0 C.
And no, short term comets come from the Kuiper belt. Objects in the Kuiper belt have been observed, now that technology has improved enough. We do observe objects in the Oort cloud occasionally. Long period comets are from the Oort cloud and we should see a Lulu later this year.
ETA: I missed your claim about the Kuiper belt.
What fool said that objects in the Kuiper belt are nowhere near cometary size. If anything they are too large, since we would of course observe the largest objects first.
It seems that you are getting your science claims from a lying source.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?